Does one need evidence for belief in God?

It is commonly the case that sound, epistemological principles such as basic beliefs immediately become regarded as invalid when applied to theistic contexts. I will show that despite this, there is a strong sense of comparability between beliefs in God with beliefs in non-theistic beings and other commonly-held basic beliefs such as qualities of love and trust. To establish that both the belief in the existence of God and the existence of other beings and non-perceptual qualities are justified as evidence in the same way, I will have to establish that they are both what Plantinga calls properly basic beliefs. I will argue that this comparability makes it equally justifiable for the belief in God’s existence in itself to be basic, in the same way that it is with other commonly-held beliefs. This argument does however require strong grounds to prove its viability, so I will be examining and critiquing the arguments which allude to a contradiction of this conclusion. By carefully examining these arguments, I will ultimately attempt to provide further justification for Plantinga’s claim that the mere belief in God is sufficient to be regarded as evident to the self, without needing to be justified through logical arguments

Is justification knowledge?

Analytic epistemologists agree that, whatever else is true of epistemic justification, it is distinct from knowledge. However, if recent work by Jonathan Sutton is correct, this view is deeply mistaken, for according to Sutton justification is knowledge. That is, a subject is justified in believing that ρ iff he knows that ρ. Sutton further claims that there is no concept of epistemic justification distinct from knowledge. Since knowledge is factive, a consequence of Sutton’s view is that there are no false justified beliefs. Following Sutton, I will begin by outlining kinds of beliefs that do not constitute knowledge but that seem to be justified. I will then be in a position to critically evaluate Sutton’s arguments for his position that justification is knowledge, concluding that he fails to establish his bold thesis. In the course of so doing, I will defend the following rule of assertion: (The JBK-rule) One must: assert ρ only if one has justification to believe that one knows that ρ

Are evolutionary debunking arguments really self-defeating?

Evolutionary Debunking Arguments (EDAs) are defined as arguments that appeal to the evolutionary genealogy of our beliefs to undermine their justification. Recently, Helen De Cruz and her coauthors supported the view that EDAs are selfdefeating: if EDAs claim that human arguments are not justified, because the evolutionary origin of the beliefs which figure in such arguments undermines those beliefs, and EDAs themselves are human arguments, then EDAs are not justified, and we should not accept their conclusions about the fact that human arguments are unjustified. De Cruz's objection to EDAs is similar to the objection raised by Reuben Hersh against the claim that, since by Gödel's second incompleteness theorem the purpose of mathematical logic to give a secure foundation for mathematics cannot be achieved, mathematics cannot be said to be absolutely certain. The response given by Carlo Cellucci to Hersh's objection shows that the claim that by Gödel's results mathematics cannot be said to be absolutely certain is not self-defeating, and can be adopted to show that EDAs are not selfdefeating as well in a twofold sense: an argument analogous to Cellucci's one may be developed to face De Cruz's objection, and such argument may be further refined incorporating Cellucci's response itself in it, to make it stronger. This paper aims at showing that the accusation of being self-defeating moved against EDAs is inadequate by elaborating an argument which can be considered an EDA and which can also be shown not to be self-defeating

The Explication Defence of Arguments from Reference

In a number of influential papers, Machery, Mallon, Nichols and Stich have presented a powerful critique of so-called arguments from reference, arguments that assume that a particular theory of reference is correct in order to establish a substantive conclusion. The critique is that, due to cross-cultural variation in semantic intuitions supposedly undermining the standard methodology for theorising about reference, the assumption that a theory of reference is correct is unjustified. I argue that the many extant responses to Machery et al.’s critique do little for the proponent of an argument from reference, as they do not show how to justify the problematic assumption. I then argue that it can in principle be justified by an appeal to Carnapian explication. I show how to apply the explication defence to arguments from reference given by Andreasen (for the biological reality of race) and by Churchland (against the existence of beliefs and desires)

An endorsement-based approach to student modeling for planner-controlled intelligent tutoring systems

An approach is described to student modeling for intelligent tutoring systems based on an explicit representation of the tutor's beliefs about the student and the arguments for and against those beliefs (called endorsements). A lexicographic comparison of arguments, sorted according to evidence reliability, provides a principled means of determining those beliefs that are considered true, false, or uncertain. Each of these beliefs is ultimately justified by underlying assessment data. The endorsement-based approach to student modeling is particularly appropriate for tutors controlled by instructional planners. These tutors place greater demands on a student model than opportunistic tutors. Numerical calculi approaches are less well-suited because it is difficult to correctly assign numbers for evidence reliability and rule plausibility. It may also be difficult to interpret final results and provide suitable combining functions. When numeric measures of uncertainty are used, arbitrary numeric thresholds are often required for planning decisions. Such an approach is inappropriate when robust context-sensitive planning decisions must be made. A TMS-based implementation of the endorsement-based approach to student modeling is presented, this approach is compared to alternatives, and a project history is provided describing the evolution of this approach

Phenomenal Explanationism and the Look of Things

Matthew McGrath has recently challenged all theories that allow for immediate perceptual justification. This challenge comes by way of arguing for what he calls the “Looks View” of visual justification, which entails that our visual beliefs that are allegedly immediately justified are in fact mediately justified based on our independent beliefs about the looks of things. This paper shows that McGrath’s arguments are unsound or, at the very least, that they do not cause genuine concern for the species of dogmatism called “Phenomenal Explanationism”, recently introduced and defended by Kevin McCain and Luca Moretti

Moral Nihilism, Intellectual Nihilism & Practical Ethics

Arguments for moral nihilism—the view that there are no moral truths—are criticized by showing that their major premises suggest epistemic or intellectual nihilism—the view that no beliefs are reasonable, justified, ought to be believed, and so on. Insofar as intellectual nihilism ought be rejected, this shows that the major premises of arguments for moral nihilisms ought to be rejected also

Are Evolutionary Debunking Arguments Really Self-Defeating?

Evolutionary Debunking Arguments (EDAs) are defined as arguments that appeal to the evolutionary genealogy of our beliefs to undermine their justification. Recently, Helen De Cruz and her coauthors supported the view that EDAs are selfdefeating: if EDAs claim that human arguments are not justified, because the evolutionary origin of the beliefs which figure in such arguments undermines those beliefs, and EDAs themselves are human arguments, then EDAs are not justified, and we should not accept their conclusions about the fact that human arguments are unjustified. De Cruz's objection to EDAs is similar to the objection raised by Reuben Hersh against the claim that, since by Gödel's second incompleteness theorem the purpose of mathematical logic to give a secure foundation for mathematics cannot be achieved, mathematics cannot be said to be absolutely certain. The response given by Carlo Cellucci to Hersh's objection shows that the claim that by Gödel's results mathematics cannot be said to be absolutely certain is not self-defeating, and can be adopted to show that EDAs are not selfdefeating as well in a twofold sense: an argument analogous to Cellucci's one may be developed to face De Cruz's objection, and such argument may be further refined incorporating Cellucci's response itself in it, to make it stronger. This paper aims at showing that the accusation of being self-defeating moved against EDAs is inadequate by elaborating an argument which can be considered an EDA and which can also be shown not to be self-defeating

"Internal Justification and Anti-Luck Epistemology: A Compatibilist Proposal"

The thesis examines a version of awareness internalism about epistemic justification according to which justified belief requires reliably formed belief in conjunction with second-order awareness. It supports this version of internalism by appealing to a conception of knowledge as a variety of non-lucky true belief; different types of epistemic luck are delineated and a modal safety-based response to epistemic luck is adopted. An epistemically justified belief, according to this version of awareness internalism, is more than a blameless belief; reliabilist insights about the nature of justification are used to explain this verdict. The thesis identifies two sceptical arguments against using anti-luck considerations to motivate awareness internalism but finds the arguments surmountable. The resultant view is a form of awareness internalism motivated by anti-luck considerations, which incorporates internal and external conditions for justification to respond to sceptical objections and explain a broad class of epistemic intuitions. Thus, it will illustrate how both sides of the contemporary internalist and externalist debate are partially correct. Nevertheless, the anti-sceptical import of awareness internalism is qualified. By considering whether awareness internalism can respond to regress scepticism, the thesis identifies a meta-epistemological anxiety about whether we do, in fact, have justified beliefs; awareness internalism does not ameliorate this concern. Similarly, the thesis identifies counterexamples to the awareness condition. The thesis contends that a non-dogmatic response to counterexamples, one which accommodates the broadest range of intuitions, allows that knowledge does not always require a belief to satisfy the awareness condition for justification. It is contended that counterexamples to awareness internalism may be regarded as instances of normatively impoverished knowledge, but knowledge, nonetheless